Matthew J. Korpman
mkorpman@lasierra.edu
Disability is still a new and slowly growing part of the critical approaches that encompass modern biblical studies. In that respect, there has yet to be a disability reading offered for the stories of Heliodorus and Philopator IV, let alone for any part of the books of 2 and 3 Maccabees. Despite no formal attempts at reading the stories through a disability lens, the issue of a particular disability has captured the notice of many commentators.
A surprising consensus among scholars working on 3 Maccabees is that the story of Philopator’s supernatural intervention appears strikingly similar to an epileptic seizure.[1] Likewise, the same observations have been made by one other scholar about Heliodorus’s episode in 2 Maccabees 3.[2] Surprisingly, this apparent consensus remains unexplored by scholarship and no attempt yet has been made to investigate how ancient perceptions of the medical phenomenon impact the meaning of the stories.
Elsewhere, I have argued for how the Epitomator of 2 Maccabees shaped his historical endeavour, drawing upon a floating legend or common source for a story revolving around God acting to defend his temple in Jerusalem. While the story may not be based in an actualised historical moment, the Epitomator’s approach towards the legend reveals their beliefs about various aspects of their worldview.[3] Although not explicitly pursuing a disability reading of the Maccabean stories, I noted that the stories could potentially provide “new insights … regarding how epilepsy was understood by some in Early Judaism.”[4] Because of both the historical value and contemporary relevance such a study can provide, it is now undertaken here.
This paper further fleshes out such an approach, focusing on the depictions of epilepsy as a divine punishment on Heliodorus and Philopator IV as a way to understand what some in early Judaism believed about the people with epilepsy living in their communities. My approach towards disability studies will be, like many others, informed by the cultural model, while also still drawing out implications about the lived perceptions (rather than necessarily the realities) of how people with epilepsy experienced life in some Jewish communities during the Second Temple period. In this model, as opposed to others such as the medical or social, it will “not distinguish between impairment as a biological or medical condition and disability as social discrimination against people with impairments.”[5] As Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper note, “the cultural model understands disability as a product of the ways that cultures use physical and cognitive differences to narrate, organize, and interpret the world.” In other words, “descriptions of disability become one way by which we create or shape culture.”[6]
Given this focus of the cultural model on “close readings of the textual representation of disability rather than trying to reconstruct the lived experience of people with disabilities in antiquity,”[7] this paper will focus less on the characters of Heliodorus and Philopator IV (or their imagined epileptic counterparts from antiquity) and concentrate more heavily on the way in which epilepsy is depicted through them. My interest is primarily in how epilepsy appears to be used as a depiction of God’s judgment and how the Epitomator of 2 Maccabees potentially interprets the mechanics of such a punishment. In other words, I do not presume that the real lived experiences of people with epilepsy can simply be deduced by their depictions in these stories, even if I do believe that the perceptions these authors had about the disease can provide potential clues toward those lived experiences. My primary goal is to reconstruct the perceptions of those who utilised the disease for their ideological aims and to reveal what those perceptions demonstrate about their understanding of the disease.
As such, I will begin by briefly reviewing what is known about epilepsy from antiquity in our Greek and Jewish sources, and then will proceed to closely examine the narrative features of 2 and 3 Maccabees. It will be argued that the Maccabean literature is unique in that it both portrays people with epilepsy as punished by a god (mirroring the superstitious perspective of the Greek “sacred disease”), but also differs in that it proposes that the seizures are a direct and primary reaction to divine punishments, rather than the punishment itself. In other words, 2 and 3 Maccabees each portray episodes consistent with a convulsive epileptic seizure. Yet, these seizures are not regarded as symptoms of a chronic medical condition. Instead, they are portrayed as the outward sign and evidence of God’s current punishment.
A Review of Ancient Epilepsy
Epilepsy in Graeco-Roman antiquity was called epilēpsia or epilēpsis. It was referred to as “the sacred disease” from the earliest of times because of the belief that it was caused by the divine realm. Epilepsy “was very frequently singled out as a condition directly attributable to the work of divine forces.”[8] The more elite medical philosophers of Greece were not as interested in these mystical connotations, and around the fifth century BCE, a document entitled On the Sacred Disease (from the Hippocratic school) argued that it was no more divine than any other disease and argued instead for a naturalistic interpretation, describing how “the patient falls down,” experiencing “spasms and anguish” (On the Sacred Disease 10).[9]
In the opinion of the author of the treatise, those who first designated the disease as “sacred” were like the people called in his day “magicians, purifiers, charlatans and quacks” …. Such people speak about “the intervention of gods and spirits” … and attribute the withdrawal of afflicted people from public view at the time of a seizure to “fear of the divine”…. Among the symptoms listed are the following: “the patient becomes speechless and chokes; froth flows from the mouth; he gnashes his teeth and twists his hands; the eyes roll and intelligence fails.” Kicking out with the feet, and jumping out of bed and running outside are also mentioned.[10]
There are at least three widely recognised accounts of epilepsy mentioned in literature from Early Judaism, between the Babylonian Exile and the second century of the common era. Both Matthew and Mark make mention of epilepsy in their respective Gospels. Another reference comes from an account by Josephus, though it must be inferred.[11] All three accounts originate from traditions in the first century CE.[12] Some, such as Max Krenkel and Adela Yarbro Collins, have also argued that Paul may have been one who struggled with epilepsy, suggesting that this was the “thorn in the flesh” he spoke of.[13] Outside of Judaism, other accounts of epilepsy are mentioned in the wider world of Greek literature.
Despite the objections of those Greek medical thinkers who were disinclined to view epilepsy as a particularly divine affair, the disease maintained a more mythical connotation for many, as can be attested to by the references to it in the New Testament. There, it is linked with or presented as parallel to demonic possession (cf. Mark 9:17–18). Nicole Kelley, echoing the consensus among scholarship, argues that despite the fact that “Mark uses no terms specifically associated with epilepsy… [he] does describe the boy’s condition in terms that are consistent with the epileptic syndrome.”[14] This was clearly perceived by the Gospel of Matthew which edited Mark to identify the disease explicitly as “moonstruck” (selēniazomai), an allusion to the widespread belief from antiquity that epilepsy was connected to the celestial body and was “a punishment for those who have offended Selene, the goddess of the moon.”[15] Collins notes, “Mark’s attribution of the [epileptic] symptoms of the boy to a spirit is similar to the popular or religious view of the sacred disease described in and rejected by this [Hippocratic] treatise.”[16] Josephus’s description, earlier alluded to and in agreement with Mark, also speaks of a demon that must be exorcised.
When reviewing the prior Greek literature, the depictions of epilepsy clearly demonstrate affinities with the Maccabean stories. The account in 3 Maccabees 2:21–24 “reads like a rather precise description of an epileptic seizure.”[17] Philopator IV is “shook … on this side and that as a reed is shaken by the wind” (2:22),[18] implying he convulses back and forth. He is said to “lay helpless on the ground” (2:22) as a result of the shaking, suggesting a violent fall. He is also described as “paralyzed” and “unable to speak” (2:22). Following this, we are informed “after a while he recovered” (2:24). Aside from the lack of froth on the mouth, a feature of epilepsy often cited in Greek descriptions, the depiction found in 3 Maccabees appears to be a compelling match to other ancient descriptions of epileptic seizures.
Although recently Jonathan Goldstein has noted that Heliodorus’s story is possibly also a depiction of an epileptic seizure,[19] this analysis has not been widely shared presumably due to the fact that 2 Maccabees adds many new elements to the events. Yet, what is described, when the fantastic epiphany is removed, remains identical to 3 Maccabees.[20] Heliodorus is said to fall violently down when a divine horse attacks him (3:25, cf. 27 “suddenly fell”), and shakes side to side continuously due to being flogged by two young angelic men (3:26). He is said to have “deep darkness” come over him, suggesting that he is paralysed and/or unconscious of what’s happening around him (3:27). He is said to lay “prostrate” and be “speechless” (3:29). Finally, he recovers (3:35).
To underscore these similarities visually, here is a comparative chart:
| 3 Maccabees | 2 Maccabees |
| Philopator falls (due to shaking?)Philopator is shaken violently (by God)Philopator lays helpless on groundPhilopator is paralysed and speechlessAfter a while, he recovers | Heliodorus falls violently (due to horse)Heliodorus shakes violently (due to young men)Heliodorus lays on groundHeliodorus, seemingly paralysed, is speechlessAfter a sacrifice by high priest, he recovers |
As can be seen, the two stories of Philopator IV and Heliodorus are identical in their narrative flow and descriptions. The primary thing that marks 2 Maccabees as perhaps different is the choice of the Epitomator to provide metaphysical descriptions of what caused the fall or his shaking. And even this is not so much different than 3 Maccabees, given its description of God physically shaking Philopator. Given this, for the same reasons that 3 Maccabees has gained a consensus regarding epilepsy, so too should a similar interpretation come to be applied widely to 2 Maccabees. And although neither story relates that Heliodorus or Philopator IV suffered from seizures on other occasions, this does not change their affinity with epilepsy, for as Roberto Lo Presti notes: “in the ancient texts the term ‘epilepsy’ can indicate both the disease as a well-defined morbid entity and the single attack.”[21]
Another important contribution can be achieved by comparing the two Maccabean accounts with the story told by Herodotus regarding Cambyses II. According to Herodotus, Cambyses suffered from madness and committed terrible sacrileges against the Egyptian divinities, such as the god Apis. Herodotus considers whether Cambyses may have suffered from epilepsy or an attack by the god Apis (Herodotus, Histories, 3.33). He writes that “such were Cambyses’ mad acts to his own household, whether they were done because of Apis or grew from some of the many troubles that are wont to beset men; for indeed he is said to have been afflicted from his birth with that grievous disease which some call ‘sacred’.”[22] Yet, this entire idea may be false to begin with. The depiction of Cambyses II suffering from epilepsy may have been “a simple calumny against the Persians invented to justify Greek political and military superiority.”[23]Archaeology has backed this theory up: “Cambyses is named as the donor of the sarcophagus of the Apis bull that died while he was in Ethiopia, and the accompanying stele tells of his scrupulous adherence to Egyptian custom in religious observance.”[24] As George York and David Steinberg note, “Herodotus had every reason to slander the Persian nobility so as to add a moral dimension to their defeat at the hands of the Greeks, and his description of the king’s madness may be completely false.”[25] They go on to argue:
Whether or not Cambyses actually had the sacred disease, Herodotus’ use of the term demonstrates an ambiguous explanation of the causes of madness… He assumes that epilepsy is a somatic disease, but he is not sure whether Cambyses’s mad acts were caused by the god Apis or his grievous disease… Herodotus’ admission that the gods might send madness in response to human transgression shows a resemblance to Babylonian explanations of epilepsy… In the case of madness, Herodotus accepts this older view of disease coming from supernatural acts or agents. In the case of epilepsy, his alternative, naturalistic explanation of disease echoes that of the Hippocratic writer of the treatise On Affections who regarded all diseases as caused by bile and phlegm rather than as sent by the gods.[26]
There are several noteworthy things that come out of reviewing this. For one, Herodotus presents us with a story in which he shows ambiguity about whether it is proper to still call epilepsy by the naturalistic name if the primary cause of the symptoms is a divine agent. When he wonders whether the madness was caused by the disease or a god, he neither rules out the idea that the disease might be sent by the god or that perhaps the name of the disease would not be right to utter when it is clearly sent by a divinity. Secondly, that this ambiguity occurs within the context of accusations of sacrilege and a god acting in retribution for such acts places Cambyses in a similar light to the foreign officials of the Maccabean stories. Could 2 and 3 Maccabees evidence this same ambiguity by their lack of explicit reference to epilepsy and their emphasis on divine action? Might the use of epilepsy as a potential slander against a foreign and irreverent leader by Herodotus provide a framework for the depictions of Israel’s God striking Heliodorus and Philopator IV with epileptic seizures to defend his temple from sacrilege?[27]
Who Can See What?
One of the more fascinating aspects of the account involving Heliodorus in 2 Maccabees is that it is more sensational in its imagery. Whereas the version of the story found in 3 Maccabees, and likely more reflective of the earlier floating legend both drew upon,[28] depicts God physically grabbing Philopator IV in order to shake him, Heliodorus has an elaborate narrative involving multiple divine parties who are involved in flogging and kicking him. Moreover, while 3 Maccabees leaves it questionable whether Philopator ever visibly saw the Jewish God shake him, 2 Maccabees is clear that Heliodorus witnessed it (but not the Jews).[29]
The ancient accounts within Greek literature depicting epilepsy often portray it as involving hallucinations or terrifying visions that alter one’s reality.[30] In the work of Euripides, these hallucinations could have horrifying consequences. For example, in the play Iphigenia among the Taureans, the young character hallucinates and the observers of his mad behaviour could tell that he “misinterpreted the lowering of their cattle and the barking of dogs as similar to the imagined sounds of the furies.”[31] In the play Heracles, Euripides describes how
Hera, the wife of Zeus, is seeking revenge for and from his birth, and she sends Madness (personified) to bring the triumphant Heracles down. “He was no longer himself; his features were distorted. His pupils were rolling around his eyes that were suddenly bloodshot, and foam was dripping onto his bushy beard.” He hallucinated that he had a chariot which he mounted, making jabbing motions with his hand and claimed he had reached a distant city. He stripped off his clothes and wrestled with a non-existent opponent, proclaiming he was the winner of the fight; his laughter was manic. After these excesses, he sleeps, and when he awakes, he is confused and amnesic. “What a terrible state of mental turmoil and confusion I have fallen into! My breathing is hot and shallow…I’m totally confused…I haven’t got the slightest recollection of being in a frenzied state of mind.” When he regains his senses, he wants to kill himself.[32]
Among Heracles various hallucinations, “the demigod, driven into madness, mistook his wife and children for Eurystheus’s family, ending up killing them, oblivious of his actions.”[33] As Trimble and Hesdorffer note, “The signs of Heracles’s madness … are quite compatible with what we now recognise as an ictally driven psychosis.”[34] Eduardo Orrego-Gonzalez, Ana Peralta-Garcia, and Leonardo Palacios-Sanchez, reflecting on the story, argue that:
Postictal psychosis (PP) is the most frequent of the psychoses in epilepsy (25%). These are characterized by having a lucid interval (between the end of the seizure and the onset of the psychotic symptoms), religious delusions, violent behavior, aggression, and visual hallucinations, following a complex partial seizure usually located in the temporal lobe. Both verbal and physical violence can occur, and suicide has been associated with PP.[35]
Given these many factors, the ancient Hellenistic imagination associated epileptic fits with hallucinations, some more benign than others. It may involve violence and murder, or simply the claim to have travelled to a distant land on a chariot that does not exist. These descriptions of epileptic seizures help to provide necessary context for any interpretation of the apparent seizures that Heliodorus and Philopator IV appear to experience, since they reveal cultural assumptions about the mechanics of both how epilepsy is experienced by someone and how it is experienced by those around them, as well as the divine reality presumed to undergird it.
For 3 Maccabees to depict God as directly shaking (presumably physically holding) Philopator is to suggest that his convulsions are not the result of a naturalistic explanation, such as the medical thinkers of the Hippocratic tradition would argue. It also means that if Philopator imagines that he is being shaken by a deity, it is not a hallucination but a testament to the divine reality he perceives. While 3 Maccabees remains unfortunately ambiguous as to what Philopator himself might have been presumed to have perceived, the work of 2 Maccabees is not so restrained in its treatment of Heliodorus.
The narrative appears to depict Heliodorus (and those accompanying him) as the only ones to see the divine epiphany. It reports that God “caused so great a manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were astounded by the power of God and became faint with terror” (2 Maccabees 3:24). It explains that “there appeared to them a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien…[who had] armor and weapons of gold” (3:25). Yet, the next verse notes that “then two other (eteros) young men appeared to him (autos)… who also stood by on each side and began flogging him continually, hitting him with many blows” (3:26, LES, also followed by NAB). Other translations render eteros as also, so that it reads: “two young men also appeared to him” (3:26, NRSV, followed by RSV).
Does the narrative wish to imply that only Heliodorus witnessed the two young men who struck him continuously? Or does the language only reflect that they were in proximity to him and not the men nearby? If the former is intended, it explains that the story is supposed to have come from the testimony of Heliodorus himself. In 2 Maccabees 3:33–35 we are informed that Heliodorus has a subsequent encounter or vision of the two young men and receives a message, one that he presumably repeats to the high priest Onias when he offers a sacrifice “to the Lord” (3:35). Agreeing with this presumption, we are told explicitly that he provided first-hand testimony of the experience to the King and others: “He bore testimony to all concerning the deeds of the supreme God, which he had seen with his own eyes” (3:36).
Given the compelling characterisation of Heliodorus as one who suffered an epileptic seizure, the expectation that he might receive hallucinations is only natural for the Hellenistic reader who associated the two together as related symptoms. A common theme in Euripides’s literary depictions of epileptic victims who struggle with hallucinations is the fact that nobody else can see them but the victim (and sometimes the victim does not even remember them, such as seen in the previous example of Heracles). If someone with this background then was to hear of Heliodorus’s episode and identify the scene as an epileptic attack, they would likely presume that whatever he saw was not visible to others.
It is at this point that we must keep in mind the distinction between the earlier floating legend about God protecting his temple through an epileptic attack, and the Epitomator’s attempt to enlarge and explain what the invisible and divine reality of this attack looked like. In other words, what operating assumptions about epilepsy appear to have informed the Epitomator of 2 Maccabees when he interpreted the legend and included it within his own account? While we do not know what the earlier story looked like, we have good reason to presume it was closer to what we find in 3 Maccabees and as such, lacked the elaborate depictions of divine beings.[36]Presuming then a story more akin to that one, we can distinguish some of the Epitomator’s additions.
The most obvious candidates would be exactly those distinctive elements that are different from 3 Maccabees: the heavenly horse and its rider, along with the two young men. The text of 2 Maccabees already hints at this in two places. When the two young men appear before Heliodorus the second time, it is presented as a personal vision, one he is told he must “report to all people” (2 Maccabees 3:34). It is not said that anyone else can perceive these young men and as such, we should then presume that their earlier appearance in 3:26 was similarly restricted to Heliodorus. Second, despite the narrative first stating that “they” saw a heavenly manifestation of a heavenly horse which subsequently “rushed furiously at Heliodorus and struck at him with its front hoofs” (3:25) and noting that subsequent to this he was flogged by the two young men (3:26), it tells us in 3:27 that “when he suddenly fell to the ground…his men took him up.” Clearly this appears contradictory, for he presumably fell because he was struck by the horse rushing at him, yet here we are told again that he fell “suddenly” and without explanation for what caused it.
There are two things that I would argue can be inferred from this: that the Epitomator’s earlier source (the floating legend), like 3 Maccabees’ account, lacked overt supernatural elements and simply had Heliodorus (or whoever the character was) fall and convulse until paralysed. Likewise, the Epitomator presumed that Heliodorus was the one who witnessed these things and reported them, remaining consistent with epileptic descriptions of hallucinations, despite the claim that the rhetorically powerful men around Heliodorus also saw the manifestation.
They Aren’t Hallucinations
Having already earlier noted that the accounts of Heliodorus and Philopator are identical with their detailed descriptions of what appears to be a recognisable account of an epileptic attack, and having established that the Epitomator’s account appears to introduce the common theme of epileptic hallucination, it appears that certain background presumptions can be understood as active in that narrative. What truly distinguishes both the account in 2 and 3 Maccabees is the fact that they appear to combat the naturalistic presumptions of Greek medicine regarding epilepsy and actively embrace the symptoms of the disease not as illness, but as visible signs of invisible realities.
By identifying Philopator’s shaking as directly caused by God himself, the writer reveals his presumptions about epilepsy, implying that other epileptic behaviour is the result of active punishment brought about similarly for sins against the divine. When the Epitomator shapes his story to explain that Heliodorus’s fall is the result of the divine horse’s hoofs, and that his convulsions are caused by two heavenly messengers flogging him, he reveals his own presumptions about the invisible reality that causes the epileptic symptoms around him. In particular, the Epitomator’s explanations of the symptoms, testified to by Heliodorus (at least, exclusively for the young men), appear to imply that the epileptic’s hallucinations are not madness, but divine realities.
This suggests that both writers do not actually perceive epilepsy as a disease in any naturalistic way, nor do they assume like the New Testament gospels that a demonic spirit has accursed the individual. They do not even appear to presume that epilepsy is a disease brought onto the person as punishment. Instead, they seemingly work on the presumption that the epileptic individual is one who has perceived or experienced the direct attack of the divine and displays evidence outwardly of that sacred reality.
Reading the accounts of Philopator IV and Heliodorus through a disability lens, and focusing on their different and similar depictions of epilepsy, it becomes possible to gain new insights into the variety of views that existed in early Judaism regarding such things. It appears that demonic possession, while attested in the first century by the New Testament gospels and possibly Josephus, was not the only explanation drawn upon during this period to explain epileptic fits. Neither were naturalistic explanations the only alternative to that viewpoint. Rather, some found it more plausible to adapt the ancient Greek presumption that epilepsy was a curse from the gods, albeit uniquely transforming it into the sign of an invisible reality.[37]
Yet, this is not the only insight that comes from this analysis. Although depicting epilepsy as a punishment from God, the writers of 2 and 3 Maccabees also appear to turn some popular ancient assumptions about disability on their head. Instead of presenting people with epilepsy as those suffering a delusion or madness, they elevate these individuals to the status of those who have been blessed to have had direct theophanies, encountering the power of the God of Israel. Not only that, but these individuals are foreigners who have been granted this special privilege, witnessing epiphanies of heavenly beings, a sight that even the Jewish people are prevented from witnessing.
This could be taken to indicate a larger and more universal vision of God’s salvific potential, extending beyond merely the nation of Israel and its population. All people and nations apparently can receive revelation from God, and the salvation he offers. In this sense, the depictions found in the books of 2 and 3 Maccabees may be quite subversive when compared with other Greek examples, demonstrating that the authors were reshaping their audience’s cultural expectations. Instead of God punishing foreigners with epilepsy simply to shame them, an epileptic seizure becomes an opportunity for revelation.
Yet one should not lose sight of the power dynamics also at play. God’s punishment also serves as a reinstatement of hierarchy, forcibly disabling those who were powerful and honouring those who voluntarily humbled their bodies low to the ground in divine supplication. In this way, the boundaries of sacred space and the distinctions between Israel’s God and foreign rulers are established.[38]
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has attempted to provide a disability reading of the narratives in 2 and 3 Maccabees, one which utilises their apparent divine storylines as conduits for revelations about the very human assumptions about disease. For the author of 2 Maccabees, what may appear to only be involuntary shaking is actually the natural reaction to divine actors abusing Heliodorus. What may only look to others like a man experiencing a seizure is in fact God actively grabbing him to punish him. The effect of this, it is argued, is that epilepsy as a condition is characterised in these early Jewish texts not as a disease brought upon by the divine, but as the consequence of invisible agents punishing the human. Although both stories only relate to two individual foreign leaders, their similar presumption that God would defend his temple’s sanctity through the punishment of epileptic fits appears to enforce the potential that all epilepsy is merely the visible evidence of the divine’s invisible punishments.
While the Epitomator of 2 Maccabees apparently desired to reveal the invisible reality behind the epileptic fit, this paper turned the focus away from the epileptic and back towards the Epitomator, attempting to reveal the invisible reality of his own presumptions, culture, and worldview as it related to epilepsy. In so doing, it is hoped that it has contributed to both a better understanding of the ancient past, as much as increased a sense of need for many of us to interrogate our own presumptions about the relationship between the divine and disease.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S. “3 Maccabees.” Pages 865–75 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
Anderson, Hugh. “Maccabees, Books of: Third Maccabees.” Pages 450-54 in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Anderson, Hugh. “3 Maccabees: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 509–29 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. Vol. 2. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.
Collins, Adela Yarbro, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.
———. “Paul’s Disability: The Thorn in His Flesh.” Pages 165–83 in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. Edited by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Collins, John J. “3 Maccabees.” Pages 1659–74 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version, Edited by Michael D. Coogan, Marc. Z. Brettler and Carol Newsom. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.
Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 41A. New York: Doubleday, 1983.
Hacham, Noah. “3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic.” Pages 167–83 in Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative. Edited by Jo-Ann A. Brant, Charles W. Hedrick and Chris Shea. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Johnson, Sara R. “3 Maccabees.” Pages 450–54 in Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom, Jacqueline E. Lapsley and Sharon H. Ringe. Rev. and upd. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.
Johnson, John C. “Maccabees, Third Book of the.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016.
Kelley, Nicole. “‘The Punishment of the Devil was Apparent in the Torment of the Human Body’: Epilepsy in Ancient Christianity.” Pages 205–21 in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. Edited by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Korpman, Matthew J. “Epiphany and Epilepsy: The Epitomator’s Approach to History and Disease in 2 Maccabees 3:22–28,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (forthcoming).
Moss, Candida R. and Jeremy Schipper. “Introduction.” In Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Orrego-Gonzalez, Eduardo, Ana Peralta-Garcia, and Leonardo Palacios-Sanchez. “Heracles and Epilepsy: The Sacred Disease.” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 78.10, (2020): 660–62. doi:10.1590/0004-282×20200085
Presti, Roberto Lo. “Mental Disorder and the Perils of Definition: Characterizing Epilepsy in Greek Scientific Discourse (5th – 4th Centuries BCE).” Pages 195–222 in Mental Disorders in the Classical World. Edited by William V. Harris. Columbia Study of Classical Texts 38. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. Christian and Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.
Soon, Isaac. A Disabled Apostle: Impairment and Disability in the Letters of Paul. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2023.
Trimble, Michael and Dale C. Hesdorffer. “Representations of Epilepsy on the Stage: From the Greeks to the 20th Century.” Epilepsy & Behavior 57, (2016): 238–42. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.01.008.
Tromp, Johannes. “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees.” Henoch 17, (1995): 311–28.
York, George K. and David A. Steinberg. “The Sacred Disease of Cambyses II.” Archive of Neurology 58, (2001): 1702–4.
Walshe, Thomas M. Neurological Concepts in Ancient Greek Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Zellmann-Rohrer, Michael. “Hippocratic Diagnosis, Solomonic Therapy, Roman Amulets: Epilepsy, Exorcism, and the Diffusion of a Jewish Tradition in the Roman World.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 53, (2022): 69-93. doi:10.1163/15700631-bja10033.
[1] Johannes Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” Henoch 17 (1995): 313; Sara R. Johnson, “3 Maccabees,” in Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom, Jacqueline E. Lapsley and Sharon H. Ringe, rev. and upd. edn. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 452; Hugh Anderson, “Maccabees, Books of: Third Maccabees,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 451; Noah Hacham, “3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic,” in Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, ed. Jo-Ann A. Brant, Charles W. Hedrick and Chris Shea (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 168; Philip S. Alexander, “3 Maccabees,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 870. Some writers though avoid explaining it at all, merely describing it as a supernatural event of some sort. For example, see Johnson’s reference of a “miraculous intervention” or Collins reference to “divine intervention.” John C. Johnson, “Maccabees, Third Book of the,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016); John J. Collins, “3 Maccabees,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version, ed. Michael D. Coogan, Marc. Z. Brettler and Carol Newsom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1659. The only serious alternative to the epileptic description is the idea that Philopator suffers “a stroke.” This was proposed by Anderson a few years prior to his description of this event as “a seizure,” and as such appears to be a view that he later relinquished. Hugh Anderson, “3 Maccabees: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, vol. 2 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985), 509. The idea of a stroke makes little sense, which is likely why Anderson changed his mind. The text is clear that Philopator was shaken back and forth like a reed and fell down unconscious during/afterward, which are not details that match the medical diagnosis of a stroke.
[2] See Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 41A (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 198.
[3] See Matthew J. Korpman, “Epiphany and Epilepsy: The Epitomator’s Approach to History and Disease in 2 Maccabees 3:22–28,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (forthcoming).
[4] Korpman, “Epiphany and Epilepsy.”
[5] Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper, “Introduction,” in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature, eds. Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 4.
[6] Moss and Schipper, “Introduction,” 4.
[7] Moss and Schipper, “Introduction,” 6.
[8] Nicole Kelley, “‘The punishment of the devil was apparent in the torment of the human body’: Epilepsy in Ancient Christianity,” in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature, eds. Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 208.
[9] All translations of On the Sacred Disease are taken from Thomas M. Walshe, Neurological Concepts in Ancient Greek Medicine (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016).
[10] Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 435.
[11] Cf. Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews 8.45–47. Zellmann-Rohrer comments that “the episode has long been supposed to concern epilepsy, but we have only the account of Josephus, not the perceptions of Eleazar or his patient on diagnosis and causation. It is uncertain whether any of them would have recognised epilepsy in those terms.” See Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “Hippocratic Diagnosis, Solomonic Therapy, Roman Amulets: Epilepsy, Exorcism, and the Diffusion of a Jewish Tradition in the Roman World,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 53.1 (2022): 71, doi:10.1163/15700631-bja10033.
[12] For a brief overview of the New Testament accounts, see J. M. Ross, “Epilepsy in the Bible,” Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 20 (1978): 677–78.
[13] For a full discussion, see Max Krenkel, Beiträge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der Briefe des Apostels Paulus (Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1890) and Adela Yabro Collins, “Paul’s Disability: The Thorn in His Flesh,” in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature, eds. Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 165–83. Isaac Soon, in his recent work, has noted though that Collins’s study “does not engage disability theory; she approaches Paul from a singular biomedical point of view.” Isaac Soon, A Disabled Apostle: Impairment and Disability in the Letters of Paul (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2023), 11.
[14] Kelley, “Epilepsy in Ancient Christianity,” 209.
[15] Kelley, “Epilepsy in Ancient Christianity,” 208.
[16] Collins, Mark, 435.
[17] Alexander, “3 Maccabees,” 870.
[18] All biblical quotations stem from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), unless otherwise noted.
[19] Goldstein, II Maccabees, 198. The account of Heliodorus “would be compatible with his having suffered an epileptic fit.”
[20] Johannes Tromp has argued extensively that similarities between 2 and 3 Maccabees are likely the result of 2 Maccabees utilising 3 Maccabees to shape his own tale. Johannes Tromp, “The Formation of 3 Maccabees,” Henoch 17 (1995): 318.
[21] Roberto Lo Presti, “Mental Disorder and the Perils of Definition: Characterizing Epilepsy in Greek Scientific Discourse (5th – 4th Centuries BCE),” in Mental Disorders in the Classical World, ed. William V. Harris (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 38; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 196.
[22] Translation taken from Herodotus, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921), 45.
[23] George K. York and David A. Steinberg, “The Sacred Disease of Cambyses II,” Archive of Neurology 58 (2001): 1703.
[24] York and Steinberg, “The Sacred Disease of Cambyses II,” 1703.
[25] York and Steinberg, “The Sacred Disease of Cambyses II,” 1703-1704.
[26] York and Steinberg, “The Sacred Disease of Cambyses II,” 1704.
[27] Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 47–52. “The story as it stands has all the earmarks of accounts written in praise of a deity who defends his/her temple or city. I hesitate to call these battle accounts examples of the same literary form, because the ways in which the deities defend their temples are so various that no tight, recurring order of content emerges …The story of Heliodorus, then, should be ranged alongside such accounts where the topos, a deity defending his/her city or temple, is found.” Doran, Temple Propaganda, 52.
[28] For the full discussion, see Korpman, “Epiphany and Epilepsy.” The following quotation summarises the argument: “In conclusion, this paper has argued that the similarity in the outlines of the temple episodes in both 2 and 3 Maccabees is due to both relying on an earlier source, one which described the same phenomenon (regardless of metaphysical characterisation). This provides a strong argument for Schwartz’ argument about a floating legend, contrary to Hacham’s counterproposal. However, contrary to Schwartz, it has been argued that the underlying phenomenon unique to both accounts (and the original legend) is reflective of an epileptic attack which was employed to fulfill the topos of Israel’s deity defending its temple.”
[29] Cf. 2 Maccabees 3:25. “The careful phrasing leaves open the possibility that only Heliodorus and his men, but no others, saw the horse.” Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 185.
[30] See Michael Trimble and Dale C. Hesdorffer, “Representations of Epilepsy on the Stage: From the Greeks to the 20th Century,” Epilepsy & Behavior 57 (2016): 238–242, doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.01.008.
[31] Trimble and Hesdorffer, “Representations of Epilepsy,” 239.
[32] Trimble and Hesdorffer, “Representations of Epilepsy,” 239.
[33] Eduardo Orrego-Gonzalez, Ana Peralta-Garcia and Leonardo Palacios-Sanchez, “Heracles and Epilepsy: The Sacred Disease,” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 78.10 (2020): 661, doi:10.1590/0004-282×20200085.
[34] Trimble and Hesdorffer, “Representations of Epilepsy,” 239–40.
[35] Orrego-Gonzalez, Peralta-Garcia and Palacios-Sanchez, “Heracles and Epilepsy,” 661.
[36] For the specific argument I give regarding this, see Korpman, “Epiphany and Epilepsy.”
[37] On the other hand, the unique arguments of Yabro Collins that Paul suffered from epileptic seizures would suggest that Paul’s letters could also attest potentially to a different understanding of epilepsy during this period, should her argument be given merit. For a full discussion, see Yabro Collins, “Paul’s Disability.” From the perspective of her disability reading, engaging a close reading of Galatians, she sees Paul as potentially attesting to the view that epilepsy was both a blessing and a curse, offering visions of divinity but remaining a “thorn in the flesh,” one that caused his incapacitation and could lead others in the surrounding population to judge quite negatively. For Paul then, and/or other people with epilepsy, following this interpretation, the experience of epilepsy was both divine and negative, a mixed reality that held more in common with the everyday lives of their non-epileptic counterparts than those same counterparts were likely aware.
[38] Special thanks are due to both of the anonymous reviewers of the earlier draft of this article for bringing to my attention various aspects of these reflections from the past three paragraphs. Their insights helped to bring further into focus a number of important dimensions of the text that had initially escaped me. This is the first time that I as a writer have been privileged to receive not simply corrections, but substantial contributions from reviewers. Full credit goes to their brilliant insights, to say nothing of their helpful corrections throughout this article that have helped to improve it immensely.